Python: Port CallGraph-implicit-init tests

to the new call-graph test setup. Nice that we can write `MISSING:` now!

Author: RasmusWL

python/ql/test/experimental/library-tests/CallGraph-implicit-init/InlineCallGraphTest.expected

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+failures
+debug_callableNotUnique
+pointsTo_found_typeTracker_notFound
+| example.py:22:1:22:16 | ControlFlowNode for explicit_afunc() | explicit_afunc |
+typeTracker_found_pointsTo_notFound

python/ql/test/experimental/library-tests/CallGraph-implicit-init/InlineCallGraphTest.qlref

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+../CallGraph/InlineCallGraphTest.ql

python/ql/test/experimental/library-tests/CallGraph-implicit-init/PointsTo.expected

@@ -5,18 +5,18 @@
 understanding import work properly, so it's better to have a clean test setup that is
 obviously correct (the other one isn't in regards to imports).
 
-Technically this is part of PEP 420 -- Implicit Namespace Packages, but does use the
+Technically this is part of PEP 420 -- Implicit Namespace Packages, but does not use the
 *real* namespace package feature of allowing source code for a single package to reside
 in multiple places.
 
+Maybe this should have been an import resolution test, and not a call-graph test ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
+
 Since PEP 420 was accepted in Python 3, this test is Python 3 only.
 """
 
 from foo.bar.a import afunc
 from foo_explicit.bar.a import explicit_afunc
 
-# calls:afunc
-afunc()
+afunc() # $ MISSING: pt,tt=afunc
 
-# calls:explicit_afunc
-explicit_afunc()
+explicit_afunc() # $ pt=explicit_afunc MISSING: tt=explicit_afunc

python/ql/test/experimental/library-tests/CallGraph-implicit-init/PointsTo.qlref

@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-# name:afunc
 def afunc():
   print("afunc called")
   return 1